Home Maxims & Terms Dishonourment meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Dishonourment

Dishonourment legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2014 CLD 995 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Ss. 72, 84 & 6Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII Rr.1 & 2Suit for recovery of moneyNon-presentation of cheque, effectDishonourmentCause of actionScopePlaintiff sought recovery of money on basis of a cheque given to the plaintiff by the defendant

Suit was dismissed on the ground that the said cheque was never presented to the bank for payment, therefore no cause of action had arisen

Validity

When the cheque was never presented for payment, then in light of S.72 read with S.84 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there was no refusal by the drawer or the bank for payment of the cheque, therefore, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing a suit under provisions of O.XXXVII, C.P.C.

Cheque was only payable on demand and cause of action arose only when such demand was not honoured

Suit of the plaintiff was therefore, not maintainable

Appeal was dismissed.

2014 CLC 1448 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Ss. 72, 84 & 6Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2Suit for recovery of moneyNon-presentation of cheque, effectDishonourmentCause of actionScopePlaintiff sought recovery of money on basis of a cheque given to the plaintiff by the defendant

Suit was dismissed on the ground that the said cheque was never presented to the bank for payment, therefore no cause of action had arisen

Validity

When the cheque was never presented for payment, then in light of S.72 read with S.84 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there was no refusal by the drawer or the bank for payment of the cheque, therefore, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing a suit under provisions of O.XXXVII, C.P.C.

Cheque was only payable on demand and cause of action arose only when such demand was not honoured

Suit of the plaintiff was therefore, not maintainable

Appeal was dismissed.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Dishonourment", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124945630

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Dishonourment"

CLD 2003
2001-May-25

2003 C L D 1370

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Plaintiff Versus SHAHYAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. — Defendant

Court: Karachi
CLC 1985
Suit No.497 of 1970, heard on 23rd May, 1984.

1985 C L C 436

Messrs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES-Plaintiff Versus Messrs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and another — Defendants

Court: Karachi
SCMR 1991
Civil Appeal No.10-P in Civil Petition No. 56-P of 1984, decided on 30th January, 1991.

1991 S C M R 836

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Appellants Versus ATIQUR REHMAN OAZI — Respondent

Court: ---- Dishonouring of cheque of customer---Damages---Post Office which acts as a banker also, cannot take up the position that it can dishonour a cheque issued by a customer without any valid reason or when the customer wants to withdraw money out of his account, the post office can issue its own cheque which can be dishonoured and, in either of the situations, the post office is not liable for damages to the customer---If no valid reason is given for dishonouring the cheque and sufficient amount is available in the customer's account to cover the cheque, the post office or the bank, would be liable for damages to the customer: --Damages.
PLD 2002
2001-December-28

P L D 2002 Lahore 164

Mian FAZAL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GULBERG LIBERTY MARKET, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
MLD 2007
2006-May-24

2007 M L D 1424

Messrs SHELL PAKISTAN LTD. — Plaintiff Versus Messrs BHOJA AIR (PVT.) LTD. — Respondent

Court: Karachi
CLD 2002
Suit No. 79 of 1997; decided on 13th September, 2001.

2002 C L D 107

EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.‑‑ ‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs SECURITY AND MANAGEMENT. SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. ‑‑‑Defendant

Court: Karachi
MLD 1987
First Rent Appeal No.667 of 1981, decided on 1st January, 1987.

1987 M L D 438

Mst. BISMILLAH JAN — Appellant Versus RIAZ MAHMOOD — Respondent

Court: Karachi
YLR 2013
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.124 of 2011, decided on 29th April, 2013.

2013 Y L R 1798

Mrs. RUKHSANA AZIZ — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD EMAD and another — Respondents

Court: Sindh
PCRLJ 2013
2012-September-3

2013 P Cr

NASEEB GUL — Appellant Versus AMIR JAN and another — Respondents

Court: Balochistan
PLC 2001
Appeal NOXAR‑75 of 2000, decided on 19th February, 2001.

2001 PLC 377

Messrs METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus Mst. NAJMA KHATOON and another

Court: Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal